Posted
by
timothy
on Tuesday November 02, 2010 @06:32PM
from the sooner-the-better dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "According to recent reports, a Google-branded Chrome OS notebook will be launched by Inventec later this month. Acer and HP will be launching theirs a month later, in December. This report is also backed by a source close to Google stating that the company is still on track to launch its Chrome OS by the end of the year, as well as its Chrome app store."

some companies are afraid of Microsoft or have been enticed to steer away from non-Microsoft software. Remember, the year the G1 was released there was that big annual mobile phone conference in Feb or March and nobody would or could say anything about Android. All they would talk about was Windows Mobile 6.5 which was due the next year. Independent press people and bloggers got some to spill the beans about releasing an Android product that year but they could not talk about it at the show.

So companies with any kind of relationship with Microsoft basically have the MS MiB's camped outside their corporate headquarters making sure nobody 'forgets' about Windows.

I'm thankful that some companies have the gutts to build and sell products regardless of what Microsoft wants or does not want.

Google is selling this phone because it advances the technology and their phone partners wouldn't sell it. Expect them to sell an Android + Snapdragon slate for the same reasons.... I doubt Google even wants to sell phones - I think they just want to get the new good technologies adopted so that people can get used to Internet everywhere quicker. This serves their bottom line because when most people use the Internet they use Google services, which Google sells ads on. You can't very well sell Internet ads to be viewed by people who aren't close to a browser. [me]

It links to this interesting article where the CEO of Asus was backing away from the Android smartbook they had recently pulled in mid-computex [pcworld.com].

"Currently, I still don't see a clear market for smartbooks," said Jerry Shen, CEO of Asustek Computer, during an investors' conference in Taipei.

So he pulls the Linux Snapdragon smartbook and shows up a few days later at an investors conference - just before the W7 launch - flanked by reps from Microsoft and Intel - probably glancing cautiously from one to the other hoping nothing bad happens to his precious W7 netbooks (little does he know...). And he gives a carefully prepared speech about how Intel and Microsoft are going to crush their enemies, see them driven before them, hear the lamentation of their women...

And now world & dog sees Microsoft as a fading power, Apple mobile platforms - and mobile platforms in general - as the next generation of user interface, and suddenly now he sees a future in it again. Intel is driving as hard as they can to be the thing that gives people what they want. Microsoft? Let's just say the KIN didn't work out and WP7 has a steeper hill to climb than it might have. What a difference a year makes.

I love my Samsung Epic Android phone, but obviously I know I would not have any such thing if both Apple and Google had not dared to bring us change, each in their own way.

That article was about Google's Nexus 1 phones. Remember that Google shopped its candybar phone to every phone vendor and they wouldn't take it, so Google made it, sold a grip of them, and ushered in all this sweet tech we enjoy today. If they had not done so when they did, we'd not have seen the first good big-screen Android platforms until after WP7 launched, if ever. And now those phones are selling 20M units a quarter in the US alone, giving 44% market share, driving every phone vendor that builds it into profitability or record profitability, giving US non-AT&T networks a phone to sell that isn't absolutely pathetic, and putting money in the pockets of a vast economy of app developers and advertising buyers (and of course, Google).

The message is pretty clear. If Google gives you a reference platform, Run With It! Refusing is not going to keep them from bringing new tech to market. They don't want the manufacturing and retail money because they want to leave that business to their partners. It's a messy customer service business with low leverage. It's not their strong point. But if their partners won't give us progress, they aren't averse to bringing it directly and reaping a few billion in hardware revenue along the way. Microsoft and Intel used to be able to prevent progress, to prevent "cannabilization" of their established markets. But now those days are done. Vendors used to be able to hold off the releases with "tomorrow, tommorow" and "any day now". Any more? No. That's not going to fly. We'll have progress now whether the established hardware vendors are ready to give it or not. There will be no stalling any more [engadget.com].

And how much money did you say they paid Google for first rights??? Oh yeah that's why they got first crack at it. I haven't seen it but were I in the market I'd wait for Asus to put out their product before I even thought of forking over my hard earned moola.

Nice thought, but I'm afraid unless they have changed things you CAN'T "SWare Iron" out the nasty, because it has both signed key and hardware checks "for security purposes" to insure you don't run a "hacked" OS. If you would like to read more here [afterdawn.com] is the only thing I could find that wasn't just more press releases. Allow me to quote some of the relevant bits "If unsigned software is about to be launched, the OS halts and is restored to clean state." And from the looks of the diagram they have the signature

I don't think they're going to compete with Microsoft. But what they are doing is trying to invent a new class of computing device, which I think is going to fail. Maybe in another ten years having a constant internet connection will be a given, but right now... I'm just imagining people trying to type a document while riding on the subway: "Whoops, lost my internet. Oh, it's back again... let me re-open my session..."

Google (google gears) and Mozilla (prism?) experimented with such a offline layer some time ago for normal browsers, and such a offline cache is part of the HTML5 spec. They have also included a file manager and media player, iirc.

Don't forget, Google has been investing heavily in HTML5 with features like offline storage and other capabilities for apps to run offline. I doubt this tablet is going to be unusable the minute the cloud goes away.

Gears or HTML5 allow for offline use of apps that will sync with the cloud once reconnected. Gears has been used in google docs for years.

To me the advantage of Chrome OS is an easy, cheap, secure computer. It would be great for my parents who seem to get a incredible amount of viruses just from browsing the web. Granted it wont replace their current PC.

I think the advantages of Chrome Os are for a completely different class of computer than Windows, or even iOS or Android.

Let's use for base hardware the Apple TV. It has the same processing capabilities as the iPad and considering Apple's love of high profit margins, is probably way cheaper to make than $99. This means that you could probably release equivalent hardware with a wireless mouse and keyboard for about the same price. What that adds up to is if you have a HDMI compatible screen, you could add C

There are a lot of people that just use their computer for facebook and generally using the web, especially people looking in this price range. The kind of people that need to write documents on the subway would not be using this. I see it as more the 'laptop for the kids/casual use' which is probably 90% of what laptops are used for in the home. I myself have an expensive laptop which I just use for browsing the web and a desktop PC for doing work. In hindsight I would have been far better off getting the

I'm sorry, you must be confused. This is Slashdot. We only tolerate one of any sort of device for all uses. Therefore, if a web-browsing only netbook appears, that means that all computers henceforth will be just like this. Gone are the days of building your own PC, running an OS of your choosing. All computers will be running ChromeOS by the end of the year. So, let's pile on with a thousand and one use cases where this device isn't appropriate. Only then can we stop it and maintain the status quo in computers.

Let's see. Astronauts. I don't see astronauts flipping around in space using ChromeOS. If the ISS were run on ChromeOS, everybody on board would be dead in three seconds. Antarcticians. Last I checked, there wasn't very fast broadband available on Antarctica. ChromeOS cannot overtake the industry until they get FIOS to the penguins down south. My great-grandma in the ICU on a ventilator can't be checking her Facebooks with this thing. They don't even want me to wear a watch in the room with her! Clearly, ChromeOS just isn't ready for primetime. Until they resolve these and many other ridiculous things I can come up, nobody should touch it. Please, for the sake of my gram-gram, don't go near ChromeOS.

I think it will compete with Microsoft in the market of people ready to move off of XP but not ready to shell out for a Windows-7 capable laptop to replace it. That's sure to be a small market, but with the right price point it's a big enough one to be interesting.

Comments like this getting modded to 5 show the general ignorance of slashdotters. First, you've never seen the device so you have no idea how it will work. Second, even if it were web service based, Google has already released apps and software components (e.g. gears) that work without connectivity. It's called synching folks

I don't think this will compete with much of anything; there's no real market for Chrome OS, and I doubt there ever will be. As I understand it, the target audience is people who:

Type too much to use a tablet.

Only use web apps.

For the most part, anybody who types enough to need a laptop with a built-in keyboard is also somebody who uses apps like Office and isn't going to be satisfied with a web substitute. Anybody who doesn't type enough to need a built-in keyboard would probably find a tablet (either

I don't think this will compete with much of anything; there's no real market for Chrome OS, and I doubt there ever will be.

Well, thin clients will be able to use this for access to internet or network based apps, lots of people would like a simple 'internet appliance' that can send/receive e-mail (via a web app like Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, etc), access the internet and maybe even send/receive SMS, and then there are many opportunities to use this as a front end for advanced interactive devices in cars, kiosks, vending machines that personalize items, etc.

I don't think this will compete with much of anything; there's no real market for Chrome OS, and I doubt there ever will be. As I understand it, the target audience is people who:

Type too much to use a tablet.Only use web apps.

Well, yes and no.

Chrome OS, yes, only support apps that run through the Chrome browser. But one of Google's focuses with the Chrome browser, even before they announced Chrome OS, was to enable browser-hosted apps to do things that, at the time Chrome was introduced, only native apps c

Apple doesn't directly compete in this market - they have no computing devices this cheap except for the iPod Touch - but that doesn't mean they're immune. The market for the iPad could be eroded by this, for example. I still have trouble understanding the market for the MacBook Air (I've seen a lot more iPads than MBAirs, despite the difference in how long each has been out) so I'm not sure whether they'll be any impact there.

MS definitely has reason to be concerned, of course, though they've been very suc

I've got a Nexus One and i'm quite happy with it, but i have no interest in a Chrome OS device in any format, notebook, netbook, tablet or anything else. The cloud can be convenient i'm sure, but i'm not enamored of an entire OS designed around the idea. I do not want to be dependent on internet access to run my apps and access my data.

like your Android running Nexus One, ChromeOS does not mean ALL apps and ALL data are on remote computers somewhere. Some Android apps are only useful with network connections to the data( google maps, email ) but others are more like "utilities" which have enough local data to run without a network. And those apps are run from your Android just like many ChromeOS apps will be. For example, there is a ChromeOS AppStore and when you load those they run on your device and are not just web pages to a remote sy

It has on offline mode, but you have to log in at least once to be able to use it. I seem to recall one issue with it a few years ago when some sort of storm knocked some of their authentication servers, causing you to be unable to log in for a few days. I bought a game around that time. Because of the issues, I couldn't play it for few days after I bought it.

I'm really hoping that this thing is super cheap. That's the only way I can really justify something that has so little capability. Some of my primary use cases - handling photos, video, etc. are just not well suited for non-native applications right now. So this would really truly be a limited device. However if the price was right - and I'm talking max $150, preferably $99 - I could really go for it. As in, I'd have them all over the house, just for convenience. But if this thing costs $300 or more then it's in iPad territory and there's just zero reason to buy it over an iPad.

I've been shopping myself and in the process have discovered something. I want an ipad. given that I won't settle for anything else unless it's just no-brainer cheap. that is, I find myslef looking at the $169 android 2.2 pads and thinking-- boy I bet these will be below $100 by January and I can wait. Then that would be worth buying. But if I'm paying more than $200 then I'm going to go all the way up to an ipad.

Which is funny to me since I did not know that would be come so clear to me. It's either

Absolutely, I'm in the same camp. But I'd bet that for the vast majority of people who want keyboards it's hard to beat a netbook unless this thing is competitive in some other major way (maybe battery life?).

I was ultra-skeptical of the iPad until I used one. Even then, the only thing I like it for is passive reading--news and books, but I'm a lit major so I read a lot. The problem I have with it is that iBooks was (from what I could find in the ten minutes I had with it) severely limited. Enough to gaurantee I wouldn't use it.

As somebody who just lost a bunch of data due to faulty backup disks, I for one welcome this.

I've yet to lose data stored on Google's cloud *touch wood*...lol.

Having data in the cloud, as well as cached/accessible locally seems like the best option. And to those talking about going underground on a train, I'm fairly sure Google's accounted for that - either through Gears, HTML5 Local Storage, or another local caching mechanism. I have a Google Nexus One, when I'm underground, I can still access all my email (that's been synced), my contacts, my calendar etc.

And having all my contacts synced online, along with all my Google Talk logs, is *awesome*. I'm a bit anal-retentive when it comes to storing things, so knowing that it's all stored, and available, and won't get lost due to filesystem corruption or something equally idiotic is good news to me. And look, worst come to worst, I lose my phone (hopefully not...lol) I'll get another, login to my Google Account, and voila, everything is synced again.

And people seem to over-value their privacy, at least to corporations. Seriously, most of you are pathetically mundane. I for one am not so insecure that I can't admit I am too. I mean, jeez, trawling through my personal emails you get...err...a bunch of emails between me and mates talking about work, me arranging lunch with my parents, and me buying stuff on eBay. Big whoop de doo. I'm happy to admit I'm a fairly boring individual, and I'm sure statistically I just fade into the background. If I was the Pope, or Jason Bourne, or I was trying to overthrow the Australian government, I suppose I might think differently. But as it is, I'm just another random guy. I doubt anybody at Google really cares, except to display targeted advertising.

The government spying on me, yeah, I have issues on that. Serious issues. A teacher at uni. Absolutely. A colleague, sure. People I know IRL, yeah. Heck, if this was Sony even, I'd have issues, seeing as they're a bunch of immoral corporates, who have no qualms about installing malware on consumer's PCs (I bought into MiniDisc ok...lol, I have a right to be bitter). But some analytical algorithm, trying to figure out which ads I'll click on? Pftt, who cares.

Google has tried to hide what they do - they display targeted ads. It's not like they've every tried to cover that fact up, nor have they been really been caught out on a privacy breach. (I'm going to discount the technical incompetent idiots who don't understand what unencrypted wireless communication is, or who can't be bothered to read what they're clicking on before they click it, a la Buzz).

I find that really awesome, and a refreshing change from every other corporation that tries to lock you in, hand over foot. It also speaks volumes about their confience - they're confident enough in the technical superiority of their solutison, that they dont' ened to resort to lock-in to try to desperately cling onto their customers.

Even if Google is completely beneficial today, even if you are completely mundane today, what makes you think it will stay that way forever? Once the data is in the cloud, there's no taking it back. Are you sure there is nothing in your email that could harm you? Have you ever sent your cellphone number to someone? What if Google decides that revenues aren't high enough and it's time to sell telephone numbers to direct marketers? Have you ever had an argument with someone in your email and said somethi

OK. So you are not afraid of Google spying on you, but you would be afraid of government agencies spying on you? Have you thought about that the government agencies may ask Google to hand them over your data set once they get interested in you? I just checked the dashboard. I agree that's not what you are afraid of. What you are afraid of is the data that can be generated by doing a sophisticated search on the complete data base. For instance the one that is a time profile of you telling what you did every

Google has tried to hide what they do - they display targeted ads. It's not like they've every tried to cover that fact up,

Uhh what?

nor have they been really been caught out on a privacy breach. (I'm going to discount the technical incompetent idiots [...] who can't be bothered to read what they're clicking on before they click it, a la Buzz).

Wasn't the whole buzz settlement about having automatically opted people into buzz who hadn't clicked on anything of the sort, and then sharing all of their google contacts with all of their other google contacts?

They also freely list all the data they store on you: https//www.google.com/dashboard

On the google dashboard, there is a link for "About privacy and security in Google Voice."
Page not available.
Does this mean privacy and security in Google Voice is not available either?

"Data in the cloud" is a fancy way of saying "Data on somebody else's storage infrastructure, not mine".

You expect that the company storing the data has a rather fancier storage infrastructure than you can possibly afford, but you can't be certain. You may have visions of the latest, greatest SAN technology complete with multi-site replication and failover capabilities - but for all you know your supplier has a vision of a single Dell server with an external storage array of 16 1TB SATA drives. And for

With pretty long battery duration (15+ hs?) and very low cost (not a lot of local storage required, no software licences, etc... maybe less than US$100?) it could have an edge. Ok, maybe more than an edge, a 3g, as probably cellphone companies could bundle them for close to free with data contracts.

Every time there's a Slashdot post about ChromeOS there's immediately a rush of posts complaining that it won't work offline.

Slashdot is supposed to be news for nerds, not recent history for nerds... but SOME OF YOU GUYS ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Listen up.This is not 1999. You can come out of your bunker now.

Google introduced offline Web functionality in in 2007. Google Docs supported Google Gears, which made it possible to use the Google word processor on an airplane with no network connection at all. I've done it. It worked fine. When I reconnected, everything synchronized with the cloud.

In 2010-2011, you can write highly functional applications using HTML5 and Javascript, make them installable on your web browser, and have them work offline. Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

In 2010-2011, you can write highly functional applications using HTML5 and Javascript, make them installable on your web browser, and have them work offline. Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

There was no Web when I was in junior high, you insensitive clod.:)

I'm glad you summarized all this because I've also seen and used plenty of these offline apps and they can be quite sophisticated. It will be interesting to see if the Web can become an app platform, beyond webmai

In 2010-2011, you can write highly functional applications using HTML5 and Javascript, make them installable on your web browser, and have them work offline.

I'd say Windows 98 is more highly functional than html5 and javascript.

This is not 1999.

Quite right, you said it yourself... its almost 2011. Why are you trying to promote a technology that's on not even on par in terms of functionality and user experience with what was available in 1999.

I'm well aware that chromeos will work offline. But if docment editing is the criteria I'd rather use Office 98 on Windows 98 than ChromeOS offline... or even online for that matter.

But fortunately Office98 on Win 98 isn't even the alternative I'm faced with; the actual alternative is Microsoft Office on {Snow Leopard or Windows 7} or LibreOffice on {Windows 7, Snow Leopoard, or Ubuntu.}.

Please stop assuming the Web is as it was when you were in junior high.

Not a problem. In junior high I used a TRS-80. The internet existed, but there was no http yet. You really have to stop pretending the Web is a modern operating system. Its come a long way in the last 15 to 20 years, but its not there yet.

If Google can get it working now, it doesn't matter if the standards change over the next 12 years. Your data will be on a Google server, and the WebOS applications can be updated to support the standards over the next 12 years seamlessly (compared to other OSs, anyway).

Heck, Microsoft Office document formats just became a standard earlier this year, and they've been used for over a decade now without too much of a problem.

Ohh yea, mister smarty pants, how are you going to use an entirely web based OS without an internet connection? just cache things locally and run them or something? Then what? Resync them next time you connect? How pathetic.

I remember the summer of 2009 when everyone was expecting the wave of ARM cpu netbooks... it never happened. My friend was designing power management ICs for them too. I suspect that the major desktop and notebook OEMs are afraid of Intel's reprisal if they were to market an ARM netbook (same goes for ARM tablets). I wonder what makes Apple so special that they are not afraid of Intel?

We have a large local organisation that has been a rock-solid windows shop for ever. I've occasionally had dealings with their IT manager, and never got any interest in moving to linux. So I just about fell over when he told me he was planning to switch as many workstations as possible to ChromeOS and Google Docs as soon as it comes out.

This is just one sample of course. But if a conservative Windows-centric organisation is planning to switch so immediately, it doesn't bode well for MS's revenue backbone - all those corporate workstations running windows and office. A switch to ChromeOS would be disruptive, but not much more so than the Windows 7 upgrade that must be on 75% of IT managers' todo lists next year.

Don't get me wrong, MS will be around for years and years, but I think their Silverlight/HTML5 announcement shows they've recognised their supremacy is over and they can't assume everyone runs Windows any more. Interesting times ahead.

The way I see this is this is a business play. For a consumer like me, a castrated variant of a laptop I already own is not particularly exciting to me. As a small business, if I use Google Apps, this would be a huge money saver. You basically don't have to do much (if any) IT if you have this. Your data is always backed up. Your laptops never have any upgrade or virus issues - they upgrade themselves and system partition is read-only. You have endless amount of space for docs and email, and pretty decent collaboration features which will only get better over time. So for a business that can cope with the current limitations of Google Apps, there's quite a bit of value in ChromeOS.

can it evolve to a competitor for ms oses on pc platform in future ? i would very much prefer to have an os that supports all open standards, doesnt lock features (like directx10-11 business), and lightweight (without all those drm shit).

Well, its more or less the definition of a troll post. No content. Just a derogatory remark. It doesn't mater if he's right or not, its how the post was written.

If he believes it, it's flamebait. If he doesn't believe it, it's a troll. Both are negative mods so the penalty for misapplication is pretty low. Go forth and moderate with an understanding of the language, grasshopper.

Google won't snag any of those markets, especially geeks because they tend to put a value on privacy.

You would think so, but then again, there are a huge number of people that think that pro-privacy things like NoScript are stupid on this website. Google-analytics isn't blocked by AdBlock or FlashBlock, but whatever. Those that set it in hosts are excluded from this sentiment, but I don't think that is too big of a percentage.

And THIS is why we won't be using Chrome OS for any of our company's private data. No, we aren't in Google's RADAR (yet) but we are a rapidly growing company, growing close to 100% this year, and with all indications of accelerating growth in the future. At what point does this privacy suddenly matter?

I have to agree, even though I see it the other way around.The problem is not that everyone has something to hide, the problem is that there are entirely too many asshats that think that they are entitled to access to your secrets.

I believe the people you refer to are those who "have a life". Sure, people who dont know how to use computers well may be more likely to get viruses etc, but is it really their fault - considering it was computer geeks who originally wrote the buggy software...and other computer geeks writing the malware...??

If you think shutting ourselves up in a cave is the way forward for humankind in the modern tech era, then good for you.

It is what it is; geeks (for better or worse) may be responsible for creating the technology, but in an era dominated by computers even people who "have a life" need to have an basic awareness of computer security practices. The problem is that people are lazy, afraid of change, or just plain stubborn. Every new technology has a breaking in period, but computers have been in the home for over thirty years. It's time people get with the program.

Yes, now go drive in reverse on the highway and when you hit someone tell them it's the car manufacturers' fault. A very advanced piece of technology like a computer requires some learning. If the person refuses to learn, I refuse to fix their computers for free.

Getting malware has (usually) nothing to do with buggy software. The software is performing what it was designed to do: run the programs the user tells it to run. It's not the program's fault the user is ignorant. (Yes, I'm excluding drive-by malwar

Wait, isn't ChromeOS basically an application running on top of Android? To call an application running on a Linux distro an OS is a kind of an overstatement. Wait till the Debian bunch start calling it a GNU/ChromeOS.

I bet you also hate it when people use "Text" as a verb instead of saying "Compose a short electronic note and send it to a friend via the Short Message Service". or "Email" instead of "Electronic Mail". Chased any kids of your lawn lately?